Weekly News Update

*The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance. [NY Times]

*In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. [NY Times]

*Mayor Bloomberg’s “Taxi of Tomorrow” is​ here to stay, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday. A unanimous ​Court of Appeals panel said the Taxi and Limousine Commission, under former ​M​ayor​ Bloomberg​, didn’t “exceed its authority” when it designated the Nissan NV200 as the ​vehicle for the city’s entire fleet, court papers say. [New York Post]

*In a ruling that could have broad implications for whistleblower cases, the NJ Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a North Bergen school board employee can be indicted for taking confidential documents from the district even though she allegedly planned to use them in a discrimination lawsuit she filed against the board. [NJ.com]

*The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times continued their fight at the 2nd Circuit Tuesday as they try to secure nine Department of Justice memos they believe outline the federal government’s legal justification for tactical drone strikes that have killed hundreds — including U.S. citizens — across the world. [Buzzfeed]

*The Patriots’ last, best hope for exoneration in the Deflategate saga is quarterback Tom Brady. TB12 is prepared to carry the Patriots banner — just not the Super Bowl XLIX one — and wage the deflated football crusade against the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell that the fan base has been demanding since the day the Wells Report was released. [The Boston Globe]

*New York City has reached the outlines of a settlement with Muslims who challenged police surveillance as an unconstitutional intrusion on their religious rights. [MyFoxNY.com]

*Last week, the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, a case that places squarely before the Court the question of who is a “whistleblower” within the meaning of the Dodd-Frank Act Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). [JD Supra]